(8)(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The prem-
ium assistance amount determined under this sub-
section with respect to any coverage month is the
amount equal to the lesser of—

(A) the monthly premiums for such month
for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in
the individual market within a State which
cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
dependent (as defined in section 152) of the tax-
payer and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,

or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the adjusted monthly premium for
such month for the applicable second lowest
cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer,
over
(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the
product of the applicable percentage and the
taxpayer’s household income for the taxable
year.

It looks, at first glance, that part A does not obtain, since there is no such exchange, and so there is only part B. However, lower down, part B is clarified:

(8)(3)(B) APPLICABLE SECOND LOWEST COST
SILVER PLAN.—The applicable second lowest cost
silver plan with respect to any applicable tax-
payer is the second lowest cost silver plan of the
individual market in the rating area in which
the taxpayer resides which—
(i) is offered through the same Ex-
change through which the qualified health
plans taken into account under paragraph
8 (2)(A) were offered….

That’s definitely a problem. Neither of the two possible pricing options to determine the subsidy exists.

Some pundits have said it comes down to ONE word, “by”, not four words, “established by the State.” The fact is, it is FOURTEEN words: “established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

The Federal Exchange is defined in section 1103, not 1311.

So what will the Supremes do?

Well, we know the progs on the bench will ignore the law — progs don’t care about laws. (Well, they don’t care about laws they don’t like. If they like a law, they’ll dig in like a tick on a hound.) So the progs will rule to uphold the subsidies, and the conservatives will vote to uphold the law as written.

I expect the swing votes to go to the progs. Why? Because they have shown no integrity. When Roberts ruled that the penalty is NOT a tax and thus the Supremes can rule on it before anyone actually pays it, then rule that it IS a tax and thus it is constitutional (the first time the Supremes have overturned a prior decision in the same decision), he has signaled to the world that he has no logical integrity, and is thus really a prog. He will rule to uphold the subsidies and write up another steaming pile to support that ruling.

In the oral arguments of King v. Burwell, Justice Ginsburg brought up the question of “standing”:

A plaintiff “has to have a concrete stake in the question,” Ginsburg said, interjecting almost as soon as Carvin began his argument. She noted that two of the plaintiffs had served in the military, one would soon turn 65 and be eligible for Medicare, and the fourth could qualify for a hardship exemption and not be required to pay the individual-mandate penalty.

Carvin countered that the lower courts had not raised a standing issue.

“But the Court has an obligation to look into on its own,” Ginsburg said. Carvin asserted that at least one of the plaintiffs did have standing before Ginsburg allowed him to move on to the merits of the case. (National Journal)

So what I want to know is, why doesn’t every taxpayer in the country have standing in cases like this?

Brown said in a statement that the bill appears to be too narrow and could go beyond what the state and federal constitutions would prohibit.

“There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate,” he wrote. “The bill’s exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.”

Uh, Guvn’r, if the bill didn’t put tighter restrictions on your misuse of drones than the U.S. and Калифорния Constitutions require, there would be NO DAMNED POINT TO THE BILL AT ALL.

So we have a state election for the top candidates and the zombies (that would be mindless/low information voters) elect 2.5 sleazy candidates. McAwful was right up front on his socialist intentions. Herring made assertions to pander to a select voting block. He informed that block that he would work to CHANGE the law (a constitutional amendment). Unfortunately, instead of doing it the legal way and upholding his newly sworn oath as the chief law guru for the state, he pulls a Holder and gets to decide what he will and will not enforce. Check it out. So he lied to reach his position. Now he is refusing to do his job. Perfect.

And meanwhile, the lefties are all about ruining their enemies’ lives, like what they are doing to McDonnell. Unfortunately, what McDonnell did was not against the law in Virginia. Who else do we know who got hung for NO wrong doing. I’m not saying that it doesn’t appear personally unethical, but that doesn’t make it a crime. Just change the rules. The lefties know this and that is why there is a FEDERAL indictment, where there is no jurisdiction. Sound familiar still? Well, aside your personal feelings on this, is this any worse than these clowns? I mean really, what’s the stink? Hmmmm?

I liked this satirical picture from Dan Mitchell’s site so much that I wanted to share it with you all here. Question of the day: Is it is more compassionate to give away other people’s money or did Jesus intend for us to feed the poor and donate our own money using our own free will?

When you go vote make sure the result is what you intended. There have been reports of people voting Romeny, and getting Obama as the result. In one case the citizen had to vote THREE times to get their intended result — which was a vote for Romney. Considering how many places this has happened there is a distinct possibility that something foul is afoot. The latest reported such incident occurred in Topeka, Kansas:

“He played around with the field a little and realized that in order to vote for Romney, his finger had to be exactly on the mark,” Nancy wrote in an email. She said “the invisible Obama field came down about 1/4 [of an inch]” into what should technically have been the Romney area.

It appears that the ‘calibration’ is rigged to cause mistakes in the Democrat’s favor. Last week the reports of such incidents in Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, and Missouri. In all states where this has occurred the error is always in Obama’s favor. Coincidence? Only if you believe in the Easter Bunny.

As Edmund Burke once said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

Do something. Go out and vote. Pay very close attention to the result coming up on the machine. You can get a printout of your vote; do this. The Democrats are desperate, and their dear leader is from Chicago. Need I say more?

Thomas Sowell, mentioned in an earlier post, wrote a wonderful article, The Fallacy of Redistribution. Sowell’s article concentrates on the practical aspects — redistribution has never achieved its stated goals, and never will. I want to examine the fallacies and hypocrisy inherent in the redistributionist philosophy itself.

In the United States, great wealth has invariable come from someone offering goods and services that others purchased. The Kennedy’s, for example, “allegedly” got their wealth trucking booze in from Canada during Prohibition. Gates got his wealth producing and selling software. Buffet got his wealth as an investment manager. In every case, people purchased what they were producing. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and architects sell their professional services. Even hairdressers and barbers get their money selling their services. The difference is that people value the services of doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers more than they value the services of hairdressers and barbers. If hairdressers and barbers tried to charge the same rates as lawyers and doctors, no-one would purchase their services. (Well, almost no-one.)

Sure, some people inherited their money. So what? If they are stupid, they will spend it all an be broke. It’s not much different from winning the lottery. And isn’t that part of the American Dream — to leave your children better off than you were? Sure. Even the 0bama’s send their daughters to private school. Is that “fair” to the poor kids who cannot afford private school? Well, since 0bama does not support school vouchers, I guess he doesn’t really care about fairness in that regard. But even inherited money was first earned by the person it was inherited from.

So, that money was earned in free exchanges. If you don’t think Microsoft Windows is worth the price Gates wants to charge you, don’t buy it. Just get a pirated copy from the Chinese. Do you think the 5-Season set of Babylon 5 CD’s is overpriced? Don’t buy it. Just get a pirated copy from the Chinese.

People do not purchase products and services if they think the price is too high. Nor will producers sell at a price they do not consider fair. That is the beauty of free commerce — both sides think they are getting a good deal. Every purchase truly is a win-win scenario.

But along come the redistributionists, who think you were robbed! The man that sold you that widget charged you too much. You were too ignorant and stupid to see it at the time, so you paid too much. Your doctor charges too much, and you are too ignorant and stupid to know it. So the redistributionists have to come in, take some money from the doctor, and give it back to you stupid and ignorant people.

So, if the masses are so stupid and ignorant that they are repeatedly getting overcharged, how can these stupid and ignorant people possibly be trusted with the franchise?

Now, let’s look at the source of the money instead of the sinks. If the people believe that a cause is worthwhile — The Boy Scouts, Planned Parenthood, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, the Virginia Association of Free Clinics — they will give their own money to those causes. They will start their own charities. If the people cannot be trusted to make wise decisions of how to donate their time and money, as consumers cannot be trusted to make wise decisions spending their money, how can they possibly be trusted with choosing those who will choose for them how much will be taken from them and what causes to put it to?

Those are the two dilemmas of redistributionism in a republic: the people are too stupid to spend their money wisely, and too stupid to give their money wisely, so how can they be trusted to vote wisely?